Ownership of agricultural land does not authorize construction or commercial use without statutory permission.

The petitioners invoked Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging a demolition order dated 13 April 2026, issued under Sections 5, 6 and 11 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, directing removal of unauthorized construction on agricultural land comprised in Khasra No. 68//19, Village Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

The petitioners claimed to be engaged in fish farming, poultry and related sale activities on the land for several years, and relied upon sale documents, licences, electricity connections and payment of electricity bills to support their possession and business activities.

They also sought consideration of their representation for rehabilitation before demolition.

The respondents contended that the land was agricultural land situated within the notified “Control Area”, that the petitioners had produced no permission for construction or change of land use, and that the impugned order was passed after issuance of notice, inquiry and opportunity of hearing under Section 12(2) of the Act.

The Court noted that the impugned demolition order pertained specifically to construction raised by Shamshid Ahmed, whereas no individual demolition order against the five petitioners was placed on record.

Nevertheless, the Court examined the legality of the impugned order without adjudicating any independent grievance of the petitioners.

Whether the demolition order dated 13 April 2026 was legally sustainable when the construction was raised on agricultural land falling within the notified Control Area without permission under the Act of 1952?

Whether the statutory procedure under Section 12(2), including inquiry and opportunity of hearing, was complied with before passing the demolition order?

Whether ownership of the land, electricity connections, licences, alleged business activity and the asserted right to livelihood protected the petitioners from removal of unauthorized construction?

Whether the structures were exempt from the Act under Section 15 as buildings subservient to agriculture, and whether the petitioners were entitled to rehabilitation?

The Court applied Sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952, which restrict construction and change of land use within the notified Control Area without requisite permission, and Section 11, which prohibits use of land contrary to the statutory scheme.

Under Section 12(2), the Deputy Commissioner may, after necessary inquiry and after affording an opportunity of hearing, direct restoration of the building or land to its original state and, upon non-compliance, take steps for enforcement.

Section 15 provides limited exemptions, including buildings for residential purposes or purposes subservient to agriculture in the village abadi area; such exemption requires a direct and proximate connection with agricultural operations.

Ownership does not confer an automatic right to construct or change land use contrary to statutory restrictions, and an electricity connection cannot regularize unauthorized construction or use.

The Court relied on Bhupinder Singh and another v. U.T., Chandigarh and another, CWP No. 26552 of 2021, decided on 22 December 2021, for the principle that a remote or indirect connection with agriculture is insufficient to invoke the Section 15 exemption.

The right to livelihood under Article 21 is not absolute and cannot protect an activity that is illegal or contrary to a valid statute.

The Court held that the petitioners’ own reliance on the sale deed describing the property as agricultural land established that the land was subject to the restrictions under the Act and fell within the Control Area.

No permission for construction or change of land use had been produced.

Consequently, ownership or status as purported bona fide purchasers did not authorize the construction of animal sheds, tin sheds or commercial structures.

The electricity meters, payment of bills and business licences were treated as incapable of conferring title, validating the structures or regularizing the unauthorized use.

The Court further found that the statutory procedure had been followed.

A show-cause notice dated 31 October 2023 had been served, an inquiry was conducted, and an inquiry report recorded the continued existence of unauthorized structures.

The petitioners failed to identify any specific procedural defect or demonstrate how the opportunity of hearing was inadequate; therefore, the general allegation of violation of natural justice was rejected.

The Court also rejected the livelihood argument because Article 21 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an unlawful structure or business activity.

The alleged fish, chicken and meat market did not have the direct and proximate nexus with agricultural operations required for Section 15 exemption, and the land was not shown to lie within the village abadi area.

Rehabilitation was likewise not considered necessary because the order directed removal of unauthorized structures, not deprivation of the petitioners’ land or dispossession from it.

Ownership, electricity connections, business activity and the claimed right to livelihood did not legalize construction or commercial use of agricultural land within the Control Area without statutory permission.

The structures were not protected by the Section 15 exemption, and no right to rehabilitation was established.

The writ petition was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit, and the impugned demolition order was not interfered with.